HOME DEPARTMENT

Terrorism Act

David Blunkett: I am pleased to say that Lord Carlile of Berriew QC has completed the report on the operation of part VII of the Act, which will be laid before the House today.

Language Analysis Pilot

Beverley Hughes: I refer to the statement that I made on 21 October 2003 about the outcome of the pilot testing of language analysis for selected asylum applicants who claimed to be nationals of Afghanistan, Somalia and Sri Lanka. My statement quoted a figure of 21 per cent. for the detection of false Somali nationals and it is necessary to clarify this finding. As the summary of findings of the three-country language analysis pilot which was placed in the Library of the House showed 12 per cent. of those tested who claimed to be from Somalia were found to be false nationals. The figure of 21 per cent. related to the Somali applicants who were tested and were found not to be from the region or tribe they claimed. Overall, 34 per cent. of the claimed Somali applicants who were tested were either not from Somalia or not from the region or tribe that they had claimed. I apologise for any confusion that may have been caused by the presentation of the figures in my earlier statement.

Criminal Records Bureau

Hazel Blears: On 27 February 2003, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced, Official Report, cols. 32WS–36WS, the Government's response to the recommendations of the independent review ream, appointed the previous September to take a fundamental look at the operation of the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB). One of their recommendations was that the Capita contract should be renegotiated to align the contract to the changed and evolving circumstances that had occurred since the original contract was signed back in August 2000. Following a thorough and constructive period of negotiation, the Criminal Records Bureau and Capita signed a revised contract on 22 December 2003.
	The revised contract is a major step forward for the CRB and represents a substantial improvement over the previous terms. The revised contract now provides for:
	as a result of recent and planned efficiency savings, from October 2004, a significant reduction in the price paid to Capita for processing each disclosure application;
	the ability to achieve year-on-year operational cost reductions with further incentives to reduce operational costs over the lifetime of the contact; any such cost savings would be reflected in further price reductions;
	pricing levels matched to guaranteed volumes, agreed on a bi-annual basis;
	additional contractual performance measures including both qualitative and quantitative standards to enhance further the Disclosure service;
	far greater clarity of roles and responsibilities within the partnership;
	incentives to allow Capita to further enhance the IT and other technical systems to meet evolving process and output requirements;
	the implementation of recommendations made by independent consultants on the IT system;
	an improved agreement in respect of financial penalties for failing to meet agreed performance standards which have been revised to meet the evolving circumstances that had occurred since the original contract was signed back in August 2000;
	a one off payment to Capita of £3.6 million in final settlement of the earlier agreed contract change which provided for the introduction of the blank application form. The payment covered the additional cost of processing the blank application forms in the period February to September 2003.
	Capita's part in the re-negotiation underlined their commitment to this partnership and to this important public service, it also reinforced our belief that it was preferable to continue with the partnership if at all possible. The partnership approach, with continued 'open book' accounting, and commitment shown during this re-negotiation augurs well for the future.
	The CRB is now on a sound footing and through the revised contract will now have far greater flexibility to improve and develop the Disclosure service over the coming years.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

Electoral Registration

Nick Raynsford: As the Government reaffirmed in its White Paper Response—"The Government's Response to the Electoral Commission's report: The Shape of Elections to Come—A Strategic Evaluation of the 2003 Electoral Pilot Schemes" (CM5975)—we are committed to developing multi-channelled, e-enabled elections, culminating in an e-enabled general election sometime after 2006. As a further step to achieving this goal we are today, in partnership with the Department for Constitutional Affairs including the Scotland Office, launching a new project to modernise the electoral registration process in Great Britain and which will lead to the registration infrastructure that can underpin multi-channelled, e-enabled elections.
	This project—CORE (Co-ordinated Online Register of Electors)—will be in two phases. The first will standardise local electronic electoral registers across the country and make them fully interoperable regardless of the local system in use. The second phase will allow authorised users to access local registration data centrally and will support a multi-channelled, e-enabled general election. The project replaces the earlier proposed LASER project to modernise the registration process, which was to have been led by the Improvement and Development Agency. Copies of a project outline, which the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is publishing today is available in the Libraries of both Houses.
	Throughout the project we will be working closely with local government, the registration software suppliers, and other key stakeholders. Government are providing £12 million Capital Modernisation Fund resources to meet the costs of the project, and we will shortly be consulting local government and others on the details for taking forward the project, including details of the funding arrangements.
	We are committed to making voting more accessible and straightforward for the electorate and to allow people more flexibility in where and when they vote. This project aims to improve the quality of electoral registers and ensure that accurate and timely registration will support the needs of the electorate and authorised users and help facilitate voting in the future. It is an essential element of our electoral modernisation agenda.

Regional and Local Referendums

Nick Raynsford: I have today published for consultation a paper discussing the provisions to be made for the Electoral Commission to pay counting officers for the expenses they incur in connection with the regional assembly referendums and the associated local government referendums. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister expects to hold the referendums in autumn.
	Copies of the documents are available in the Libraries of the House. They will also be available on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website:
	http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_control/documents/contentservertemplate/odpm_index.hcst?n= 4095&1=2
	This consultation, and the two launched on 18th December concerned with the combination of the regional and local referendums and on registration and spending limits respectively, will run until 16th February. We would be very grateful for all comments on these proposals.

Planning Appeals

Keith Hill: When the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister introduced new procedures in August 2000 to improve the handling of planning appeals we said that their operation would be monitored and reviewed. The outcome of the most recent review has suggested a need for some changes to be made.
	There was concern expressed during the course of the review by a wide range of stakeholders about the perceived inequity for third parties taking part in the appeals process. It was considered anomalous that the rules do not allow third parties to comment on the appeal statements made by the main parties. In order to address this inequity and more fully involve all members of the community in the planning process, we intend to conduct a consultation on proposals to amend the rules for written representations, hearings and inquiries procedures. The proposed amendment would allow third parties that have commented at the 6-week stage a further opportunity to comment on main parties' appeal statements at the 9-week stage of an appeal.
	We shall also be amending the rules to take account of drafting amendments suggested by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and to correct minor technical anomalies.

TRANSPORT

Night Flying Restrictions

Tony McNulty: On 8 April 2003, Official Report, cols 9–10WS, we announced publication of a consultation paper on night flying restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. The present night restrictions regime for those airports applies until 31 October 2004: the consultation paper explained our proposal to defer our intended review of those night restrictions and to continue the present regime for a further year. The consultation period ended on 11 July 2003.
	Briefly, the reasons for our proposal were:
	(a) that it seemed wise to defer consultation on a long term night noise policy until the responses to the consultation on The future development of air transport in the United Kingdom: South East, including views about the appropriate review cycle for night restrictions, had been considered and the air transport White Paper published, thus enabling all options to be considered in the light of the wider policy context;
	(b) that it seemed preferable to wait until we had the judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights on a case concerning the 1993 night restrictions regime at Heathrow before reviewing our objectives and bringing forward detailed proposals for a further night restrictions regime;
	(c) that European Directive 2002/30/EC requires us to describe the environmental objective(s) for each airport concerned, before proposing and assessing what restrictions would be appropriate in order to achieve those objectives, and we considered it preferable to establish those objectives in the context of the White Paper.
	The proposal to extend the current night restrictions regime for one further year indicated that all the common arrangements—the hours of the restrictions, the system for classifying aircraft and other detailed aspects of the regime—should continue unchanged until the end of the summer season 2005 (30 October 2005).
	We also proposed that the movement limits and noise quotas for the winter season 2004–05 and for the summer season 2005 should remain the same as those for winter 2003–04 and summer 2004 respectively at each of the three airports.
	The consultation paper also
	(a) commenced consultation on some of the general principles and policies underlying the night restrictions; in particular, the present policy of having common arrangements at all three airports and the broad issues relating to the possible extension of the night quota period (currently 2330–0600);
	(b) explained how we intend to take forward the results of two reviews relating to the classification of aircraft for night restrictions purposes;
	(c) explained how we intend to take forward the results of a separate review of the departure noise limits and the related noise monitoring arrangements.
	The consultation responses encompassed the full range of interests, including airport consultative committees, local authorities and parish councils, environmental and other groups and individuals from around all three airports, plus airlines and aviation bodies. The decision that I am announcing today relates only to the arrangements for 2004–05.
	After careful consideration of all relevant points made in the responses, we have decided to extend the night restrictions regime at all three airports as proposed. The reasons for doing so remain largely as set out in the consultation paper and summarised in this statement, and were accepted by many of those responding to the consultation. We welcomed the judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, received three days before the consultation period closed. That judgment clears the way for our forthcoming review of policy on night flights at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted.
	There was a wide but not universal acceptance among those who responded specifically on the proposal to extend the current regime for a further year, that this was appropriate, although a substantial number of local authorities and local groups from around all three airports indicated that they want a reduction in night flights, or a complete ban, in the longer term. There was some comment on the size of the movement limits and noise quotas for 2004–05, especially from those commenting on the findings of the main technical review about the classification of aircraft for night restrictions purposes.
	The issue that has attracted attention from this review is the finding that the version of the Boeing 747 most commonly operating at Heathrow during the restricted hours was noisier in normal operations than its certificated noise levels by the noise certification procedures of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). There are many reasons why monitored noise levels will not match certificated noise levels, particularly because certification testing is carried out under strictly controlled meteorological and acoustical conditions and using defined flight path procedures which may differ from those used in-service. However, we have drawn the results of the work to the attention of international experts currently examining the ICAO noise certification requirements to ensure that they reflect modern operating practices and conditions.
	Some consultees suggested or implied there should be an immediate substantial cut in the noise quotas if these aircraft were not reclassified. The Government does not accept immediate action would be appropriate. This is a matter which the Government believes should be considered in the context of the new arrangements and requirements which flow from Directive 2002/30/EC (now transposed into domestic law: SI 2003 No. 1742) when the wide ranging review takes place.
	At Gatwick and Stansted the mix of aircraft operating at night is different, as are issues relating to the size of the noise quotas. The 1999 decision included small progressions (downwards at Gatwick, upwards at Stansted) in the noise quotas over the five years of the night restrictions regime. In the consultation paper we indicated that we had considered whether to continue these progressions for a further year but that, as the progressions were small and the services operating at night were in a considerable state of flux, we believed it better to have no change between the last year of that scheme and a one year extension. None of those who responded to the consultation paper suggested an increase in the quotas for Stansted but at Gatwick some local consultees suggested cutting the movements limits and noise quotas which are currently under used, particularly in winter. Given the difficulty in the current consultation round of establishing whether and to what extent any cut might be appropriate, the Government remains of the view that the status quo should be maintained pending a full consideration of all the issues.
	We have therefore decided that, at each of the three airports, the movement limits and noise quotas for the winter season 2004–05 and the summer season 2005 shall be the same as those for winter 2003–04 and summer 2004 respectively. These are:
	Winter Season 2004–05
	Movements LimitNoise Quota
	Heathrow25504140
	Gatwick52506640
	Stansted50003550
	Summer Season 2005
	Movements LimitNoise Quota
	Heathrow32505610
	Gatwick112009000
	Stansted70004950
	This decision maintains the balance struck between the conflicting interests in 10 June 1999, Official Report, cols 378–79. We are satisfied that this will remain the appropriate balance for 2004–05 whilst we carry out the further review of night flying restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted.
	Copies of all the responses, except where the author has requested confidentiality, are available for six months for inspection by prior appointment at the DfT Library and Information Centre, Ashdown House, 123 Victoria Street, London SW1E 6DE.
	I am placing in the House Library a summary of the responses, including points relating to the general principles and policies underlying the night restrictions and to the ways in which we intend to take forward the results of the reviews relating to the classification of aircraft for night restrictions purposes and of the separate review of the departure noise limits and the related noise monitoring arrangements. The responses on these other matters will be taken into account in developing proposals for the next night restrictions regime for consultation in due course. The summary of responses is also available on the Department's website: www.aviation.dft.gov.uk

DEFENCE

Gurkha MAS Policy

Ivor Caplin: On 4 June 2003, it was announced that the Ministry of Defence would undertake a review of Gurkha Married Accompanied Service (MAS) policy. The aim of the Review was to consider whether the current arrangements were satisfactory and what changes, if any, would be necessary. In examining possible changes the Review team are also considering whether any of the special circumstances of Gurkha employment justify MAS restrictions and, if so, to what extent.
	The Review team is studying a number of options, the detailed work of which is not yet complete. I had originally hoped to announce the outcome of the review to the House by the end of 2003. I anticipate being in a position to make a full and substantive announcement on the outcome of the review to the House later in the year.

Armed Forces Pensions and Compensation

Ivor Caplin: The House of Commons Defence Committee published its report on armed forces pensions and compensation on 16 December 2003 (HC 96). The Government's response is published today in a Command Paper (Cm 6109), ahead of the second reading debate on the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill on Tuesday 20 January. Copies are available in the Vote Office from 12 o'clock.

Normandy Landings (Commemoration)

Ivor Caplin: I am pleased to announce that Her Majesty The Queen and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have accepted invitations from the President of France to attend commemorations of the 60th anniversary of the Normandy Landings in France in June this year. Further information about the programme, including attendance by other members of The Royal Family and representatives of the Government, will be issued in due course.

TREASURY

Museums

Paul Boateng: The "Securing the Best for our Museums: Private Giving and Government Support" report has been published today and copies are available in the Libraries of both Houses and in the Vote Office. Copies will also be sent to the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales.
	I appointed Sir Nicholas Goodison to lead a review of the effectiveness and efficiency of support to regional and national museums and galleries to help them acquire works of art and culture of distinction that might otherwise be sold abroad, and to make those items accessible to the public. This review was announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Budget 2003. The review is now complete and the "Securing the Best for Our Museums: Private Giving and Government Support" report contains Sir Nicholas Goodison's findings and recommendations.
	The Government will carefully consider the recommendations ahead of Budget 2004 and as part of the 2004 Spending Review.

Tax Avoidance

Dawn Primarolo: Legislation to prevent tax avoidance using transactions in strips of Government bonds is to be included in Finance Bill 2004. The legislation applies to holdings of such strips where the profits or losses are chargeable to income tax and addresses the artificial creation of losses that can be set against other income. The changes will have effect from today.
	A copy of today's Inland Revenue News Release giving the relevant background to this measure is being deposited in the Libraries of both Houses and is also accessible on the Inland Revenue's website: http://www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Oil and Gas Production

Stephen Timms: I am pleased to inform the House that I am today offering ATP Oil and Gas (UK) Ltd. an oil and gas production licence on seaward block 2/15 in the northern North Sea.
	The successful applicant will have a fixed period in which to decide whether or not to accept the offers.
	The DTI undertook an environmental screening assessment to ensure compliance with environmental legislation, and concluded that
	"the screening had not identified any environmental concern that would prejudice the offering of block 2/15 for licence".